Lawrence Lessig on efforts to stamp out MNT research
Foresight Senior Associate Luke Nosek brings to our attention a piece on Wired.com written by Foresight Advisor Lawrence Lessig, titled Stamping Out Good Science, which describes efforts to eliminate research proposals for molecular manufacturing from US NNI funding consideration. "Science thus becomes irrational because we can't imagine government as rational. Simple facts of a political nature, we might say, tweaking and reusing Smalley's warning in a much more depressing context, prevent good science from ever becoming a reality."
July 14th, 2004 at 3:07 PM
The laws apply only to government funding
The laws apply only to government funding. There is no provision there to prohibit MNT research by private companies, like Zyvex, for example, which have been doing just fine, thank you, without any government handouts. I don't see what the panic is all about; if you are a nano researcher, you can just go get a job in the private sector. It will probably pay better too.
July 14th, 2004 at 8:04 PM
Anti MNT Laws?
Well first of all, where in that Wired article does it say that the NNI will definitely ban all forms of Bottom up Molecular Manufacturing? Secondly, as another poster said, 'so what'. All that will do is slow them down. Nanotech will progress at various rates in private labs and academia in the rest of the nation and elsewhere.
July 14th, 2004 at 8:46 PM
Re:Anti MNT Laws?
No, there are no anti-MNT laws. However, many private companies depend on government grants to survive to the next quarter.
Zyvex is an exception, though. Jim Von Ehr has told me that his company has the luxury of not needing to depend on government grants, thus Zyvex can stay focused on its original dream of building a molecular assembler. But Zyvex is an exception because it has a wealthy man with a vision at the helm.
If the government does get behind a project, then development comes much faster. The U.S. Army now needs sensors and robotics for its Future Combat Systems program. So, sensors and robotics it is for companies that might have otherwise developed their technologies along different lines.
In the academic world, especially, I've heard stories about how grants are selected at the university level. If the NNI wants buckyballs, and is giving out money for buckyballs, then, more than likely by gosh, your buckyballs are in for some grant money. Precise positional molecular assembly? Get to the back of the line, you wacko.
Mike Roco told me in Washington a few months ago that every nanotech project has a chance for funding as long as it goes through the proper peer review process. The grumbling I heard in the sidelines, though, suggest that the "peers" are slightly predisposed.
Howard Lovy
July 15th, 2004 at 6:45 AM
Re:Anti MNT Laws?
> many private companies depend on government grants
> to survive to the next quarter.
A company that depends on government handouts for continued existance should not exist at all. If it is not making profits and has no plans to make profits, it does not deserve to call itself a company. It should be called a "leach".
July 15th, 2004 at 10:54 AM
Re:Anti MNT Laws?
I disagree. There are some types of development that are so long term that no serious company is going to consider them. Consider for example non-nanotech based fuel cells and the "hydrogen economy". No fuel cells means no vehicles that run on hydrogen. No vehicles that run on hydrogen means no market. No market means no incentive to build pipelines or trucking networks to transport hydrogen (or probably worse — fuel stations that manufacture H2 from water or natural gas) to provide a fuel supply. No fuel supply means no incentive to develop fuel cells.
There are simply problems that cannot be solved without actions by organizations (governments or foundations) which have very long term perspectives — in contrast to VCs or many private investors who generally look for 3-5 year ROIs.
July 15th, 2004 at 1:41 PM
Nanobot "fantasy" vs. "warp drive"
Here's what really seems weird to me. The existence of ribosomes and enzymes, and many accepted technical writings such as Nanosystems have clearly shown that MNT is consistent with widely-accepted scientific laws. Yet, the government refuses to grant funding for MNT, claiming without good scientific argument that it is an impossible childish fantasy. Yet, this same government has funded a program (http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp) to develop, guess whatÖ WARP-DRIVE! Anyone who knows basic science knows that THIS is fundamentally impossible with currently accepted scientific laws. Let me make myself clear, though. Iím not suggesting in any way that this program is stupid. Maybe they will eventually find and verify new scientific theories such as ìelectrogravityî and ìzero-point energy.î However, considering how well current laws have been tested and the fact that ìelectrogravityî and other such theories are not well-accepted by the scientific community, thatís one huge ìmaybe.î If I were responsible for making political policy, I would fund at least a hundred million a year into MNT research (not feasibility research, but a focused and large-scale engineering project dedicated to designing and building a diamondoid nanofactory) and less than a hundred thousand, if any money at all, on a credibility study of warp drive, ìelectrogravity,î antigravity, etc. Moreover, this would benefit space enthusiasts since MNT can create highly efficient and fast diamondoid spacecraft as well as nanomachines that can slow the brain enough to make a thousand years seem like a minute (the technology will be difficult to develop, but no physics breakthroughs are needed). This way, a million-year interstellar journey is actually a 1/3 hour journey. In my opinion, the government is taking a very irrational and ìchildishî route by funding research into a field that is more than a hundred times as futuristic and rejected by the scientific and engineering community than MNT and, at the same time, dismissing MNT as impossible and childish when there are already trillions of nanobots on our keyboards (i.e. germs), our mouths, and everywhere. Maybe the government doesnít know basic science, or it has some strange political agenda. What it is up to?!
July 15th, 2004 at 2:06 PM
Re:Nanobot "fantasy" vs. "warp drive"
The government isn't allowing 'civilian' funding, simply because the military is already working on its own nanotechnology program behind closed doors. I'd like to think that government is stupid, but it's not – one can't become as corrupt as it is now without having SOME wit in its arsenal.
July 15th, 2004 at 8:00 PM
Re:Nanobot "fantasy" vs. "warp drive"
Actually, my friend, your post is half-right. See, the policy makers know that electrogravity is real, and well-supported with evidence. Look into the work of men such as T Thomas Brown and a number of others regarding this. The fact is, that both electrogravity, zero point vacuum fluctatuation energy (look into the Casimir Force/Casimir Effect), AND molecular manufacturing are absolutely possible within the known laws of physics. Personally, if I had the power, I would IMMEDIATELLY end ALL funding to the war in Iraq, and I would POUR BILLIONs of dollars into MNT Replicator development, along with the Quantum Vacuum Energy research. I would put K Eric Drexler in charge of the National Nanotechnology organization (and his Foresight Institute) and I would set up a massive organization funding electrogravity/zero point energy motor research (Some good places to go for information on this: http://www.infinite-energy.org, http://www.integrity-research.org, and http://www.cheniere.org). It is senseless and ridiculous for our government and our corporations to be wasting time on garbage, when money and talent should be pouring into MNT research .. By the way, "warp drive" is another name for spacetime curvature manipulation, and the "Dirac Sea" contains abundant supplies of energy potential. Nanotechnology and Zero Point energy technology tie into each other at a point: You can build arrays of "Casimir Force Generators" ala those designed by Robert Forward and the Zero Point Energy Antenna designed and patented by a man named Meade, at the molecular level. One study claimed that a very functional ZPE Converter would be virus sized. What does this mean? Once we have MNT and advanced MEMS, we can then break through to the even deeper realm of QUANTUM MANIPULATION.
July 16th, 2004 at 7:19 AM
Re:Anti MNT Laws?
> There are some types of development that are so
> long term that no serious company is going to consider them.
So if nobody wants to do this research on their own, we ought to force them to pay for it anyway?
> Consider for example non-nanotech based fuel cells and the "hydrogen economy".
> No fuel cells means no vehicles that run on hydrogen.
How do you think the oil economy started? Before internal combustion engine there were no vehicles that used gasoline either. You just have to come up with intermediate valuable steps. Fuel cells have much potential use as laptop batteries, for instance. It is the same with MNT: long before you develop an actual assembler you would necessarily have to create tools that would facilitate synthesis of its precursors. Those tools may easily be employed for other purposes, like making better catalytic converters for automobiles. There are few inventions that are "all or nothing". Even spaceflight can be made to pay off in the short term by launching satellites, tourism, real estate sales, and arcology-related tech.
> No fuel supply means no incentive to develop fuel cells.
It was the same with oil, and yet we have cars.
> rganizations (governments or foundations) which
> have very long term perspectives — in contrast
> to VCs or many private investors who generally
> look for 3-5 year ROIs.
I disagree entirely. Government research organizations are even more short sighted, only their myopia is caused by the nature of the grant process. Because scientists have to continually beg for money, they also tend to research for the short term, in order to produce "flashy" results that look good in presentations but do not necessarily have any use whatsoever. Government bureaucracy is also a great hindrance to progress. What took decades to NASA, SpaceShipOne accomplished in a few years, for dramatically less cost and better results.